The transparent society... You cannot prevent the increased ability to collect information, it is who selectively owns and uses the information that is the problem.
The response to increased transparency of citizens to the government is to demand (actually insist and order) increased transparency of the government to the citizens. Whatever data or information the government (or any of its employees) receive, it automatically becomes as easily and accessibly available to the general public as it does to the government.
Why? Because in a democracy, the government are the employees of the general public, to do the public's will. And the public even gives these employees the power to imprison some of the public in certain cases. That is unusual power.
The solution to government corruption and data collection is for everything they do, know and receive to be easily, immediately and publicly available (think internet). Practical implementation - independent people with video cams follow all elected people (including opposition) 24 hours a day and record everything. It all goes on the internet. Same goes for people who draft legislation. Other government departments. All documents that government folks have copy to the internet. All conversations, including phone. Money trails. Everything seen and heard. With the exception of a few items, such as the launch codes for the nuclear missiles.
We don't impinge on the free speech of lobbyists, or tell government officials how to do their jobs. Its just all becomes a matter of easily accessible public record for our perusal, if we wish. If the government officials are doing a good job, they would have nothing to fear.
This would be the real power of the internet showing itself.
Government official complaining about lack of privacy?? Tough, because as our employee with the power to imprison us, you and your successors need watching. Governments do not need privacy.
You say criminals may use the surveillance information to their advantage. Except their actions will also be public record too.
Most people have been aware of the large Microsoft warchest of billions with which they have been known to squash competition. Hence, one of the best ways to peg back Microsoft a few notches (and become less of a monopoly), is for them to lose some of this warchest. Watch as Microsoft spend the bulk of their warchest on Yahoo, influence Yahoo with their Microsoft leadership and business styles, people run away from such dictatorial practices, and Yahoo diminish in value until there is little value attached to the brand.
Poof! Billions of Microsoft dollars gone up in smoke. So sssssshhhh... don't tell them they are making a very big mistake. Perhaps then they will start competing on valuable software and services.
In the debate over whether the general population should be readily able to own and carry guns, one way of looking at it is to consider guns as just one option on a continuous scale of weaponry of increasing effect, from fists to sticks to knives to guns to grenades to tanks to bombs to nuclear weapons. The general idea as one moves up the scale is that a single person can injure/kill more and more people before they are subdued themselves. The question is where does a society consider acceptable to place a limit on the scale, above which people do not get access to those more powerful weapons.
One argument is that weapons (eg. guns) do not kill, people do. In that case, why do we not allow nuclear weapons to be sold at the local mall? If people are responsible with their nuclear weapons, no problem. But unfortunately and bluntly, the majority of humans are passionate people who can do things in the heat of moment. That is built into the genes, and won't be removed anytime in the next few millenia. If they use a nuclear weapon, is there any punishment big enough to suit killing 200,000 people? An ugly side effect of those who don't value their own life is that death is not a punishment.
If we consider the vast majority of humans to be animals that all have irrational and passionate moments (which is actually true), perhaps the general population should not have ready access to weaponry whose effect outweighs the seriousness of the situation. For instance, if a driver pulls over and attacks another driver for a careless lane change, it would be preferable that they can only attack with fists and a stick perhaps, rather than a gun. For when the situation has calmed down, the outcome of the scenario in one case is a lot worse than another, with all their cascading sub-effects like a lost father, husband, business and economic output.
The only problem is that people are not built physically equal, so intimidation of one human of another has historically occurred eg. bullies, gangs, mafia, especially in freer countries. A young woman is going to lose a stick or knife fight against a well-built bully, who wants to be paid his 'protection money'. Guns equal things up, as the bully knows he could be easily taken out by the young woman with a gun if she so chooses. So perhaps guns are a good thing.
The other horrible aspect of the modern world is that one of the largest threats to a democratic population is not being taken over by an 'bad' external country, but being taken over from within by 'bad' people who want power (or just people who want 'good' things, but their incompetence makes them 'bad'). They bluff and trick their way into power and then hold it by controlling information, changing laws and eliminating opposition. Examples are Germany in the 1930s and Zimbabwe today. The country turns to custard when it happens and the population suffers. The USA's founders recognised this massive threat and almost all of its base laws, including the constitution and others like 'habeas corpus', and ideas like free speech, are designed to prevent this from happening, or at least slow up the bad guys long enough to let the good guys fight back and kick them out. Thats why its so hard for the government to change the constitution.
To prevent this takeover, guns in the general population allow a final physical fightback against a horrible government. It works too, just look at Iraq today where the random population can take on the best equipped army in the world. So perhaps guns in the general population are a good thing, preventing the possibility of a ruthless government, but at the 'expense' of more random civilian deaths here and there.
However, what sort of worked for the USA for the centuries (and others) can always be looked at to see if society and technology has changed to allow change to the balance of what weaponry the population can generally have. With modern communications, government can be watched more carefully. The internet can be outstanding here. And perhaps
Slashdot Mirror
The response to increased transparency of citizens to the government is to demand (actually insist and order) increased transparency of the government to the citizens. Whatever data or information the government (or any of its employees) receive, it automatically becomes as easily and accessibly available to the general public as it does to the government.
Why? Because in a democracy, the government are the employees of the general public, to do the public's will. And the public even gives these employees the power to imprison some of the public in certain cases. That is unusual power.
The solution to government corruption and data collection is for everything they do, know and receive to be easily, immediately and publicly available (think internet). Practical implementation - independent people with video cams follow all elected people (including opposition) 24 hours a day and record everything. It all goes on the internet. Same goes for people who draft legislation. Other government departments. All documents that government folks have copy to the internet. All conversations, including phone. Money trails. Everything seen and heard. With the exception of a few items, such as the launch codes for the nuclear missiles.
We don't impinge on the free speech of lobbyists, or tell government officials how to do their jobs. Its just all becomes a matter of easily accessible public record for our perusal, if we wish. If the government officials are doing a good job, they would have nothing to fear.
This would be the real power of the internet showing itself.
Government official complaining about lack of privacy?? Tough, because as our employee with the power to imprison us, you and your successors need watching. Governments do not need privacy.
You say criminals may use the surveillance information to their advantage. Except their actions will also be public record too.
Poof! Billions of Microsoft dollars gone up in smoke. So sssssshhhh... don't tell them they are making a very big mistake. Perhaps then they will start competing on valuable software and services.
In the debate over whether the general population should be readily able to own and carry guns, one way of looking at it is to consider guns as just one option on a continuous scale of weaponry of increasing effect, from fists to sticks to knives to guns to grenades to tanks to bombs to nuclear weapons. The general idea as one moves up the scale is that a single person can injure/kill more and more people before they are subdued themselves. The question is where does a society consider acceptable to place a limit on the scale, above which people do not get access to those more powerful weapons.
One argument is that weapons (eg. guns) do not kill, people do. In that case, why do we not allow nuclear weapons to be sold at the local mall? If people are responsible with their nuclear weapons, no problem. But unfortunately and bluntly, the majority of humans are passionate people who can do things in the heat of moment. That is built into the genes, and won't be removed anytime in the next few millenia. If they use a nuclear weapon, is there any punishment big enough to suit killing 200,000 people? An ugly side effect of those who don't value their own life is that death is not a punishment.
If we consider the vast majority of humans to be animals that all have irrational and passionate moments (which is actually true), perhaps the general population should not have ready access to weaponry whose effect outweighs the seriousness of the situation. For instance, if a driver pulls over and attacks another driver for a careless lane change, it would be preferable that they can only attack with fists and a stick perhaps, rather than a gun. For when the situation has calmed down, the outcome of the scenario in one case is a lot worse than another, with all their cascading sub-effects like a lost father, husband, business and economic output.
The only problem is that people are not built physically equal, so intimidation of one human of another has historically occurred eg. bullies, gangs, mafia, especially in freer countries. A young woman is going to lose a stick or knife fight against a well-built bully, who wants to be paid his 'protection money'. Guns equal things up, as the bully knows he could be easily taken out by the young woman with a gun if she so chooses. So perhaps guns are a good thing.
The other horrible aspect of the modern world is that one of the largest threats to a democratic population is not being taken over by an 'bad' external country, but being taken over from within by 'bad' people who want power (or just people who want 'good' things, but their incompetence makes them 'bad'). They bluff and trick their way into power and then hold it by controlling information, changing laws and eliminating opposition. Examples are Germany in the 1930s and Zimbabwe today. The country turns to custard when it happens and the population suffers. The USA's founders recognised this massive threat and almost all of its base laws, including the constitution and others like 'habeas corpus', and ideas like free speech, are designed to prevent this from happening, or at least slow up the bad guys long enough to let the good guys fight back and kick them out. Thats why its so hard for the government to change the constitution.
To prevent this takeover, guns in the general population allow a final physical fightback against a horrible government. It works too, just look at Iraq today where the random population can take on the best equipped army in the world. So perhaps guns in the general population are a good thing, preventing the possibility of a ruthless government, but at the 'expense' of more random civilian deaths here and there.
However, what sort of worked for the USA for the centuries (and others) can always be looked at to see if society and technology has changed to allow change to the balance of what weaponry the population can generally have. With modern communications, government can be watched more carefully. The internet can be outstanding here. And perhaps